[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Great Googly Moogly!
>From: "Jim Sigel"
>Subject: Great Googly Moogly!
>>Leave me out of this.
>>Jo asked for an opinion, I give it, and now I'm creating generalizations?
>>I don't think so.
>>It was a statement about *one* person.
>Good God Kevin...take a valium and ride it out.
>Don't you think you're being
>a weeeee bit over-sensitive here?
And it continues...
Jim, I'm sure from your perspective, I'm being over-sensitive.
But, right on the heels of Alan's unprovoked critique of my entire social views on when government should be involved, and when it shouldn't, the last thing I (or anyone for that matter) needed to hear was you jumping on Alan's bandwagon.
Felt like you and Alan needed to get a room.
So, no, I don't think I'm being over-sensitive.
>Sorry man, Jo asked for a "male" opinion, not just yours specifically.
There's a *big* difference in providing your opinion on the topic, vs. providing your opinion on *my* opinion. Plus, you then tied it to a completely unrelated issue that you knew was irritating me (Alan taking the opportunity to raise a long gone thread of my view on Universal Healthcare).
So, come on man.
Surely someone as bright as yourself can see the difference between stating your opinion about a topic, and stating your opinion on someone else's opinion.
>that means the subject itself is open to comment - by anyone.
Obviously. But, you're plain wrong with your insinuation that I didn't want you to contribute your opinion on the topic. I just wanted you to keep your opinion on my opinion to yourself.
Thus, my "leave *me* <personally> out of this" comment.
>You threw in
>your two cents and I threw in mine.
You did more than just throw in your two cents.
You also characterized my two cents. And, incorrectly at that (given that you compared coaching of Jr. High kids, with 10 year olds.)
>I made one comment about what I called a
>generalization by you,
Ya didn't have to go there.
You didn't have to also tie that to Alan's and my "discussion".
By doing so, you basically took Alan's side and called me inconsistent.
(paraphrase)'I agree with Alan that Kevin's inconsistent! He accused Alan of making a generalization, and then he made one himself! Ooooo! Oooooo!
Besides the fact that you were wrong, why go there?
>Sorry if you interpret that as a slam
>man. It wasn't intended to be.
That's fine. Sometimes slams aren't intentional. But, they're "slams" none the less.
>Hell, I even called you an "esteemed"
I know. I sensed the light hearted meaning.
But, you stuck your hand in the mouth of a dog that was already pissed (at Alan).
And, my reply to you wasn't that bad.
I know you can take much worse. ;-)
>What, you want more??? Well...
"Get on your knees boy!"
>"Fuck you. Don't come following me no more." - Gastogne, the waiter. THAT'S
>A JOKE, DAMMIT!!!
Taken as such.
Let's get back to The Who!
Kevin in VT
This message, and any attachments, may contain information that is confidential, privileged, and/or protected from disclosure under state and federal laws that deal with the privacy and security of medical information. If you received this message in error or through inappropriate means, please reply to this message to notify the Sender that the message was received by you in error, and then permanently delete this message from all storage media, without forwarding or retaining a copy.